Teach your kids sex ed early
 

The Three P's

Geveryl Robinson

http://savannahnow.com/node/764314

What's the age that a child can get a prescription over there? It's 16 here I think, otherwise the parents have to be involved.

I think testing for STD's in school is ok, and I agree that the parents should be notified if the results come back positive. For that matter, I think they should be notified if the child decides to have the test. Surely that would inform the parents even part way.

Kids are very secretive as teenagers. The more communication there is between parents and teachers, the better off the kids are going to be.

I agree. I am not sure at what age they can get BCP without parental consent, I would imagine it is 18 yrs. There is absolutely no reason not to have discussions about the use of birth control with your children, male and female, long before they are sexually active.

That would be great if all parents could actually discuss this kind of stuff with their kids.

That's a fair point casi, but on the flip side, there's no point burying your head in the sand if you can't. As the parent, you're the grown up. It has to start with you somehow. Don't ask me for the answer to communication problems with kids. I don't have all of those, but I do know it has to happen.

I get a lot of red flags reading that article (no, that's not an STD). The way it drifts from fact to opinion without clearly demarcating the two.

It also fails to consider the other side of the argument.

Suppose there IS mandatory notification of the parents if the child either chooses to have the test, or tests positive. That will deter a lot of kids from having the test. Thus defeating the purpose of finding out who has STDs and treating them and preventing the spread.

Meh, this is an old and intractable problem. There is no clear threashold age at which kids suddenly leap to adulthood. They have bodily urges, poor decision making, demand privacy but also support. We muddle through as best we can.

[/non-parent]

As a teen, someone just out of high school and not far from middle school, and with rather uptight and uncomfortable if not unsupportive parents, I definitely agree with the sentiment. Things are easier when the kids don't have to hide, and while I'm not exactly in favor of middle schoolers shagging, I'm less a fan of them doing it unsafely. The reality is, the kids are gonna do it one way or the other, so it would do their parents - and society at large - well to give them support and education rather than sweeping teen sex under the rug.

The fact that STDs are rampant shows the parents are not doing their part. Most of them are in denial that their precious babies even know about sex. I'm glad the school/public health people are at least offering the kids some help.

Yup and yup.
13% with an STD (albeit in a pilot project, probably aimed in an area they knew would have a problem).
So, what? You allow that 13% to infect every other teen they sleep with from then on in? No - you educate, educate, educate. And offer free testing.

Sorry if your kid can't talk to you honestly about sex.
I never have with my Mum and now I never will. The first time I had sex I had unprotected sex. Luckily my bf questioned me and was horrified at the risk we'd just taken. He was wrong to assume I was on the pill, but his reaction afterwards was completely right. My first ever contraceptive was the morning after pill :headshake

If students are sexually active, and know they can be tested in confidence in a place that's convenient to them, I'm all for it. Like my wake-up call, just the fact of the test might make them ask what they are doing, and be more responsible in future.

and then we get situations like this.

Well, looking at the original article, just remember it was about DC. The level of social disorganization there is rather high, and it is quite likely that some of the children do not have parents who are sober enough to talk about anything coherently. Much less pay attention.

Speaking of disorganization, I remember when my stepfather, who was drunk most of the time anyway, got even more drunk and tried to talk to me about sex and "the thing I run water through". Useless. That was about 60 years ago, and I still get furious whenever I think about him.

I also remember when I was driving my kids home from school and the DJ made a joke about somebody who went to a taxidermist because his two horses died. The taxidermist said, "You want them mounted?" And the guy said "No, side by side is OK." My kids demanded an explanation of that joke, and they got it. I don't remember their ages, but they had already had some education on the subject.

Sex education is absolutely crucial, as I'm sure everyone would agree. What people don't agree on is who should do it (parents/schools); and how much confidentiality should apply.

In an ideal situation, parents would be up to the task, and speak openly, informatively, and reassuringly to their kids at the right teachable moment.

Who the fuck has this "ideal" situation? Certainly, the article is about kids who don't. All things considered, I'd rather have kids informed and tested than not.

I had the basics from my Mum. My sister was due to receive sex education at school, and she was allowed to opt in or out, via a letter to parents. Partly because of a recent episode of a school soap opera called Grange Hill, where a kid was laughed at for ignorance, but mostly because she always tried to keep us ahead of the stream, Mum went through things with Laura. About a week later she felt bad about keeping me in the dark, given that I was the more curious (intellectually) of the two of us, and explained things to me too.

But I had sex education at school when I was 11. And this was a Catholic school.
And then every damn year after that, from Combined Science, to Social Sciences, to Biology. Trust me, I knew the ins and outs of sex like... well - intimately.

And yet, like I say, the first time could have got me up the stick if my bf hadn't asked that all-important question. Teens think they are invulnerable. I did anyway, and further knowledge suggests it's a widespread phenomenon.

Keep asking, keep telling, keep questioning and testing.
I'll bet 200 years ago far more teens had STDs - and probably even died from them. We are moving forward.

Oh and OC - it's nasty that spiteful girls meant a girl had a pregnancy test. But I still think it's better that she was tested and negative than not tested and hiding it. If she is a virgin, then I can see it would be an issue for her - she would feel accused, and maligned. When I was 12 I was still sunshine, lollipops and lemonade. But I certainly know schoolmates of mine had breats, periods and other semblances of being women. They weren't of course - they had the life experience of children. But I think at 12, peeing in a cup is far better than an internal exam.

And after all, if she was sexually active (and even a my school there was a girl who got pregnant at 13) then good for them - she might feel targetted, but that's a bullying issue, not a healthcare issue.

Oh and I hope the girl goes to school in a really rich area. Otherwise, what are the parents doing sueing? Hoping to reduce budgets even further? I can only assume they have no younger children, to want to damage the school system that way.

I really don't think the two cases are in any way analagous. If the girl were pregnant, it would eventually become known and be dealt with (one way or another). If a youngster has an undiagnosed STD and that isn't found and dealt with they will more than likely infect other youngsters, who will likewise probably remain unaware of it unless they become symptomatic. One is a response to an individual case, the other is a systematic attempt to stem a growing health problem within the younger population.

I do not like this article at all. This author is blinded by the social stigma of sex.

I would assume most everyone here would agree with schools taking responsibility to prevent the spread of non-sexually transmitted diseases such as the flu or mono because it only takes one ignorant parent to allow a sick child to infect the entire school. Why is it so different for sexually transmitted diseases? STDs do not just affect individual children, but the entire student population because it can easily spread from one person to another and it is extremely easy for a selfish asshole child to ruin a good innocent kid's life through the use of alcohol and smooth talking. Parental guidance is the most important influence for children but with issues such as these, it only takes one mistake.

STD's are a social issue and therefore should be addressed by the schools. Many parents do not fully inform their children of the risks of unprotected sex and that could be one of the reasons for such high STD and pregnancy rates among today's teenagers. This is not the most preferred way to address this issue in my opinion, but I also see it better then the alternatives.

I would argue that many parents do "inform" their children -- and those same children believe (as SG did) that it won't happen to them. Teen pregnancy rates are down from the levels they achieved in the 1950s, and now we are no longer focusing on the low-hanging fruit (if you will) of kids who listen and understand the first time. Tell 'em, keep telling 'em, and test them occasionally. Then, maybe, just maybe, they'll get it.

Kids think they are invincible and bad things only happen to other people.

Yes, many parents do inform their kids about safe sex, mine did, and I have had no problems in that area. But that isn't my point. My point is that STDs should be treated as a social problem and public schools should do what they can to help further lower STD and pregnancy rates. This is because even no matter how well a parent teaches their kids about safe sex, it only takes one mistake. A 99.9% record of not making dumb decisions means absolutely nothing if someone gets pregnant or picks up an STD during that 0.1%. I can say from personal experience that dumb decisions are easy to make when you are drunk and being pushed into something, especially for teenagers.

While I personally will guarantee that my potential future children will learn about safe sex and the consequences of unprotected sex, I would feel better if schools joined in as well since I will not know who is raising the kids that my kids may sleep with. Also, even with using precautionary measures, condoms do break, boy/girlfriends cheat, and some STDs can even be transferred through oral sex. So even if the chances of school taught safe sex having an impact is small, for me, it would still be worth it.

Well this mindset arises from the fact that many of these kids are pampered throughout their childhood. I never really had that mindset, but I also learned consequences from my actions early on. But yet, even without that invincible mindset, mistakes, bad decisions, and bad luck can still occur.

Although I agree with most of what you say, I shared a piece of my past to prove that intelligent, well-educated, sensible teens can still act like they have a Get Out Of Jail Free card in their back pocket. I was not pampered - I'd say almost the opposite. I was very much taught that every action has a reaction and my parents would not love me if I screwed up. And a teen pregnancy was the worst way of screwing up imaginable (STD could be hidden after all).

Good kids from well intentioned homes and decent parents screw up too.
I was 16 - which seemed so old to me then.
But I can imagine how much more daunting the whole world of sex is if you're 13, 14 etc. Too young? Yes of course. But Juliet was only 14 in Shakespeare's play. Let's not pretend it's a modern issue.

I never said good kids from well intentioned homes don't screw up, in fact, I mentioned that many times. I've lived with the consequences of my actions in other areas for over a year and I expect to live with it for the rest of my life. I'm in the same boat. I was a intelligent, well-educated, sensible 20 year old who made a single decision that has made a major impact on my life.

Because of this, I fully understand why children with good parents can still make mistakes. And because of this, I would like schools to teach safe sex because that child with good parents could make a mistake with another child who hasn't had anyone to teach him or her safe sex. That could result in a very bad situation for the first child.

Also, I am not trying to make it sound like school taught safe sex has a drastic impact on student safe sex practices, but any drop in STD or pregnancy rates is worth it to me.


BTW, my pampered comment was not directed at anyone who has made a mistake because they failed to see all outcomes of a given decision. That is impossible for any teenager to achieve. My pampered comment was directed at teenagers who truly do not believe that any bad can happen to them because they have never learned the consequences of their actions. SG, you were obviously not one of those children.

I don't know when they changed it, but the age of consent in Victorian London was 12.

Yes, T-W-E-L-V-E.

Maybe Drax is off building a time machine?

haggis!

Yeah, but wasn't the average life expectancy like, 15?

You don't have to go so far back in time to see that, ZG -- my grandmother was married at nine years old. She's 84 now so it was a while ago, but not that long.

Well the victorian era didn't end till around the turn of last century, so it's close to the same time frame. Only 10 or twenty years off. ;)

D'oh!

You know what. I found out the other day that my 12 year old has been masturbating. It was accidental while I was looking for something on his computer. lol

I knew it probably had been happening, but I really just didn't need to read about it.

..and I would say he doesn't need to write about it.


Just do it, ya know :D

At age 12 it's only abnormal if he doesn't do it twice a day.

Pierce, you have to keep her article in the context of her own background and demographic. She is an educated black woman who grew up in Savannah, a majority black town. She is often speaking to her base and to those she know will listen to her. I believe her message is on target.

Pierce, I wasn't offended. I just feel that sometimes there's an "us and them" situation re younger people and stupid behaviour. You're holding your hands up, and that's what I was doing too.

Merc - I think that makes it worse.
She is ANTI testing of teens and yet she's an educated woman?
I sort-of get parents who are anti-sex (like it works?!), anti-contraception or anti-abortion. Although I don't agree with them. And it tends to come from a religious issue. Which I completely don't agree with - don't let your kids fuck their lives up because of a magic book. But I know my view is not a mainstream one.

But I don't get parents who are anti-reality. I think another Dwellar has already said this, but would she (the author of the article) be the same if it was lupus or sickle cell anaemia? No of course not! And why? Oh because the children with STDs are already guilty. Written off, I guess. And no, she didn't write that - but she extrapolates in her article, so I'm just joining the party :)

I'm with Sundae Girl on this one. First, I do believe that her religous background and beliefs about sex are giving her an inconsistent view on the heath of the school. I have said it numerous times, STDs are a social issue and schools should deal with the problem. When everyone was talking about the swine flu, entire schools did everything they could to prevent the spread of it and I don't see why schools shouldn't act the same with STDs.

Second, I believe her entire article is based off a strawman. She states that schools should focus on the three As and not the three Ps. By saying this, she is making the assumption that schools can not put adequate focus on both topics, which I believe is strongly untrue because my school did just that. I agree were her fully that schools should get back to the 3 As, especially in lower income black areas, but using the 3 Ps as a scapegoat is heavily flawed in my opinion.

If she is preaching to her crowd, fine, I disagree with it but it is their decision in the end. And hell, maybe she has some insight that I do not in her community.


Also, looking at the article again, I agree with most of her body statements, which explains her stance. I disagree with the summarized message but I agree that when it comes down to STDs, just like swine flu, both the parents and schools should be notified.

I think I disagree with this statement. I know when I was a kid, it was mostly true. But to me, kids today seem to almost WELCOME bad things happening to themselves. Like it's a badge of honor to get pregnant at 13 or contract some disease or get expelled or suspended from school.

This may be a location based thing.
My niece is 15 in September. She goes to the same school I went to. No-one in her class is, or was pregnant.
There was one girl pregnant in the year above me when I was at school (she ended up in my year because of this.) We were all freaked out by her.

Different kids, different values. And please note this is NOT a class issue for me. My sister's SIL (ie, same genes as the father of my niece & nephew) quit school because she was pregnant. But then her bro (my BIL) was the only father she'd ever known. Nature? Nurture? I dunno.

I just think the media like to make out that abortions are sending the world to hell in a hand-cart.
And I think they'd lead to a more civilised society.
And unfortunately the difference is religion.

But these days you can't scare the bejesus out of teenagers.

When I was in 8th grade, they brought a guy from the health department, and he showed us medical slides of people who had STDs. Full-on shots of rotting genitalia. That scared the bejeesus out of quite a few teenagers that day, I promise you.

I have to partially disagree with that last part. Its much less unlikely that an abusive parent will beat their child for swine flu, but for having sex, sure would. I think it would depend on the age of the child and the specific circumstances on whether notifying the parent is a good idea. There is no good way to make a rule that would treat each child (by child i mean <18) according to special circumstances. In addition to that a child might decide to falsely accuse another of rape in order to cover for their medical condition and to keep themselves from getting into trouble for their own action. Maybe a good solution would be to give the child (if the have positive test) the option of talking to social services, or going straight to their parents.
I do think sex ed, free STD testing, pregnancy testing, and counseling in schools are all great ideas. Now, hows it gonna get paid for?

That only makes it worse, African American women count for about 60% of women with AIDS. Overall about half of those diagnosed with AIDS are African American. I had trouble finding exact information (ok I got tired of looking) but I believe African Americans also have the highest rate of teen pregnancy. Someone less lazy than me can contradict me.
Shouldn't numbers like this make any educated person want to be pro-active about reducing them through any means?

Oh, and I do, which is why I posted it.

So Merc, what do you think of the article author's thesis?

they don't see the end result as a life changer - they always see someone else taking care of the problem or it being resolved - Which is NOT true. Sometimes good kids do stupid things not realizing it will forever alter OR END their lives.

What ees thees theeng you call the secks?

Be more specific.

They see how they think it makes them look in the eyes of their peers and they like it. Kids like to look older, edgier... that's why they smoke, drink, have sex etc. I agree with Cman in that they really don't understand the consequences for the most part, they just want to look cool to their friends. I remember girls in my high school that seemed proud that they got knocked around by their boyfriends - like dealing with these 'adult issues' made them more interesting.
Most people grow out of this if they don't do anything too stupid...

Hi,

Sex education is a topic of great importance. So sex education is not just about our kids, it's educating a society to a new way of being and relating, to new, healthy attitudes about ourselves, other people, our world.

______________________

The folks in question would disagree with you on the 'healthiness' of these new attitudes, Nicholas. Wherefore these problems.

BTW, welcome!

Yeah, me too. I really don't like this article.


________________
Blues